The High Court has once again shown no mercy on a litigant in person who failed to appreciate the civil procedure rules.
The claimant in Christodoulides v Holbech had applied for an oral hearing to revisit a provisional assessment of his barrister’s bill. Those costs had been charged in a previous professional negligence case against a solicitor firm.
Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC had already determined in April that the claimant had failed top produce a properly formulated request for an oral hearing and that the provisional assessment stood as the final assessment.
Civil procedure rules state that litigants requesting an oral hearing must identify items in the court’s provisional assessment which are sought to be reviewed.
The judge said the latest application did not identify any of the 43 items which were to be reviewed, either by number of any other way. It followed that the provisional assessment was binding.
Instead of selecting items that should be looked at again, the application contained wide-ranging complaints of unfairness, lack of transparency and improper conduct by the barrister and his representatives.
The judge said he had explained the rules more than once, ensured they were set out for the claimant and physically displayed the White Book in front of her. He had repeatedly explained the nature of the hearing and encouraged her to focus her submissions, but to no avail.
The judge added: ‘I appreciate it is difficult for a litigant in person to direct their arguments with appropriate focus, but the fact of the matter is that virtually all of the claimant’s submissions have really been directed at the allegations of misconduct and fabrication which go to the substance of the case rather than why the provisional assessment should be re-opened despite non-compliance with the rules.’
Citing Barton v Wright Hassell LLP, in which non-compliance was not mitigated by being a litigant in person, Roy said there was no suggestion in this case that Christodoulides had even taken the basic step of trying to ascertain what the rules said and required. ‘Being an unrepresented party is not by itself a good reason for non-compliance,’ he added.
